If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Until the 50s, people who made rockets only made them to blow people up. All I'm saying is a lot can change. The focus is currently suited to our needs, as you say its all fiscal modeling and specific simulations and whatnot. But if the political climate changed, I'm sure academics could be talked into changing their minds about what they deem important. I'd wager that the people who designed the NSAs wonderful LogEverythingEverOMatic were probably high minded academics at some point.

I mean, I'm aware that I'm somewhat coming up with solutions to problems that don't exist and not even offering a scenario that would require a sentient AI, but I just don't think its an impossible situation to find ourselves in.

Originally Posted by Kanye West

I think what Kanye West is going to mean is something similar to what Steve Jobs means. I am undoubtedly, you know, Steve of Internet, downtown, fashion, culture. Period.

Originally Posted by Kanye West

I am God's vessel. But my greatest pain in life is that I will never be able to see myself perform live.

I just can't conceive of a situation that would need a general purpose AI. Any requirement is not going to be so broad as to require a single intelligent overseer that isn't human - it would be a series of task specific AIs (which are quicker, easier, and cheaper to develop) passing data to each other that a maintenance engineer will make sure works properly. The only reason to develop strong AI is to develop strong AI.

That could be because the current paradigm is the human race is a self determining set of people that are in charge of its own destiny. If resource scarcity and the wars that follow ravage our planet enough, we may come to the conclusion that the human brain is too primitive to govern large groups of humans. Engineer a being thousands of times smarter than we are with an eye on long term sustainibility instead of short term profit, bang and the stains gone.

Of course it's fanciful, and currently we are way to proud and smart to ever do it but fear is a hell of a drug. Tell an american in the 70s that their country would be turning itself into a surviellance state to avoid a much smaller threat than communism and they'd laugh at you.

Originally Posted by Kanye West

I think what Kanye West is going to mean is something similar to what Steve Jobs means. I am undoubtedly, you know, Steve of Internet, downtown, fashion, culture. Period.

Originally Posted by Kanye West

I am God's vessel. But my greatest pain in life is that I will never be able to see myself perform live.

"fuck em they'd kill me if they had the chance" is way too simplistic a conclusion for a high functioning primate like yourself to arrive at.

But its definitely a small part of it

Originally Posted by Boris

Well, I kind of misspoke. I should have said that I don't think free will exists.

Ive never understood this one either. If you dont believe in free will, how are you making decisions to speak to us? Wouldnt that also mean that you believe something is controlling us, or has some say over a pre determined path? I just cant accept that. Different topic though.

Originally Posted by Boris

You always get into these completely arbitrary lines, and there's no use discussing them because there is no right answer. If we assume, for the sake of the argument that hard determinism is true, there is no difference between turning off a computer and disassembling it and killing a chicken.

If that is what it would take to prove determinsm to be true, I would go ahead and argue that determinism can never be true. That said, at this point (as I believe Rizlar pointed out?) we are all just theorising.

We cant say for certain whether or not a digital and biological brain can ever be compared fully, but I would still go as far as to say that I dont believe they are at all the same. You say there is no difference, but in stating the two options, you outlined the difference. One is biological, and one is digital/mechanical. One is man made, one is organically made. etc..

For arguments sake, I would like to point out that if there were a sufficiently intelligent enough robot, I would still not want it to be treated unfairly.

Im not an expert so I cant say for certain, but I honestly dont think we can say that an AI chicken and a real chicken can be the same, especially with the current state of technology. Sure we have advanced ai that seem to be the same, but I dont think they truly are. That is just an opinion based on what ive seen from real world AI, but I Really wouldnt expect to see behaviour that I could class as realistic and chick-telligent from a robo-chicken.

(in response to validity of vegetarianism)

Originally Posted by LaKroy

Humans use an unsustainable amount of natural resources.

So, in conclusion, the argument FOR vegan/vegetarianism is:

Let them get on with it, because it might save the planet, and that means theres more meat for those who actually want it. :P

My next question to vegan/vegetarians here: Would you kill/eat meat and animal produce if your life depended on it?

Ive never understood this one either. If you dont believe in free will, how are you making decisions to speak to us? Wouldnt that also mean that you believe something is controlling us, or has some say over a pre determined path? I just cant accept that. Different topic though.

I can't speak for Boris but I believe that a hard view of determinism leads to seeing free will non existent/an illusion. To steal part of a quote on wikipedia

"Either determinism is true or it is not. If it is true, then all our chosen actions are uniquely necessitated by prior states of the world, just like every other event. But then it cannot be the case that we could have acted otherwise, since this would require a possibility determinism rules out. Once the initial conditions are set and the laws fixed, causality excludes genuine freedom." Colin McGinn

Ive never understood this one either. If you dont believe in free will, how are you making decisions to speak to us? Wouldnt that also mean that you believe something is controlling us, or has some say over a pre determined path? I just cant accept that. Different topic though.

My brain is making those decisions. Based on chemical and electrical (and other physical) interactions in my brain that can be explained naturally, as in without influence of a deity or a soul.

It does not exclude the possibility that there's something controlling us, but I don't think so. Also, why can't you accept that? Does it make you feel bad?

The brain is basically a very big computer that we don't quite understand (yet). The fact that we don't understand it does not make it magical.

Originally Posted by BasicPauly

If that is what it would take to prove determinsm to be true, I would go ahead and argue that determinism can never be true. That said, at this point (as I believe Rizlar pointed out?) we are all just theorising.

This is a fallacy. Whether or not you think electrical and chemical computers are the same or not has no bearing on the determinism of the universe (which simply states that given a certain initial state, subsequent states can be predicted).

Originally Posted by BasicPauly

We cant say for certain whether or not a digital and biological brain can ever be compared fully, but I would still go as far as to say that I dont believe they are at all the same. You say there is no difference, but in stating the two options, you outlined the difference. One is biological, and one is digital/mechanical. One is man made, one is organically made. etc..

Which are qualifiers that do not matter in the slightest.

Originally Posted by BasicPauly

For arguments sake, I would like to point out that if there were a sufficiently intelligent enough robot, I would still not want it to be treated unfairly.

Im not an expert so I cant say for certain, but I honestly dont think we can say that an AI chicken and a real chicken can be the same, especially with the current state of technology. Sure we have advanced ai that seem to be the same, but I dont think they truly are. That is just an opinion based on what ive seen from real world AI, but I Really wouldnt expect to see behaviour that I could class as realistic and chick-telligent from a robo-chicken.

No, not with the current state of technology. But that is not the point.

The point is, that it is possible to create an artificial chicken (or simulate an entire chicken brain in real time) with technology. If there is such a thing as a soul, a computer would not have it and the simulated chicken would not work.

Your first sentence does raise an interesting question though -- who decides what is sufficiently intelligent? How would you measure it?

This whole thing makes me realise how religious folk must feel when I carefully explain why I don't believe in God. All they must hear is I believe there's no point to life, which isn't true. When I hear people saying everything is predetermined and my consciousness is essentially a side-effect of my monkey machine brain making decisions before I know they've been made, I get this overwhelming feeling of ennui.

I'm more OK with it than I was yesterday but it's still a pretty depressing and sobering thought. I'd be interested to see the average artist/musicians creative output after they learn about determinism, I would guess most of them just slash their wrists the moment they fully comprehend it.

Again, not denying it as a compelling philosophy, it just bums me out.

Originally Posted by Kanye West

I think what Kanye West is going to mean is something similar to what Steve Jobs means. I am undoubtedly, you know, Steve of Internet, downtown, fashion, culture. Period.

Originally Posted by Kanye West

I am God's vessel. But my greatest pain in life is that I will never be able to see myself perform live.

This whole thing makes me realise how religious folk must feel when I carefully explain why I don't believe in God. All they must hear is I believe there's no point to life, which isn't true. When I hear people saying everything is predetermined and my consciousness is essentially a side-effect of my monkey machine brain making decisions before I know they've been made, I get this overwhelming feeling of ennui.

I'm more OK with it than I was yesterday but it's still a pretty depressing and sobering thought. I'd be interested to see the average artist/musicians creative output after they learn about determinism, I would guess most of them just slash their wrists the moment they fully comprehend it.

Again, not denying it as a compelling philosophy, it just bums me out.

"Quantacat's name is still recognised even if he watches on with detached eyes like Peter Molyneux over a cube in 3D space, staring at it with tears in his eyes, softly whispering... Someday they'll get it." - The Conclave

If determinism were true that does not make us any less complex beings.

We do not live as 'black boxes' a vast array of sensory and other inputs inform what happens to us. Plasiticity of mind means that all those inputs must include all historical inputs as well. Then a vast array of biological factros inform how those inputs are reacted to and a vast array of actions are possible as outcomes.

In theory determinism suggests that if you knew the entirety of inputs and workings of an individual you could fully predict all causal responses.

But that knowledge, of all inputs and workings is so far beyond where we are at. So for all but philosophy of mind discussions it renders it, in practice, a moot discussion.

Determinism doesn't mean that we are not capable of creativity, beauty, feats of wonder or simply being good (or bad) people. All determinism does is suggests where that creativity, beauty, good and bad are located. It locates it in classical causality rather than a free willed consciousness or a divinely inspired project. It does not make beautiful things any less beautiful. It does not make an arsehole any less an arsehole.

This whole thing makes me realise how religious folk must feel when I carefully explain why I don't believe in God. All they must hear is I believe there's no point to life, which isn't true. When I hear people saying everything is predetermined and my consciousness is essentially a side-effect of my monkey machine brain making decisions before I know they've been made, I get this overwhelming feeling of ennui.

I'm more OK with it than I was yesterday but it's still a pretty depressing and sobering thought. I'd be interested to see the average artist/musicians creative output after they learn about determinism, I would guess most of them just slash their wrists the moment they fully comprehend it.

Again, not denying it as a compelling philosophy, it just bums me out.

Oh yeah, I get that. It's a pretty depressing outlook on life, the universe, and everything. I don't particularly like it, but I think it is the most likely to be correct explanation.

I'd rather everyone reincarnate perpetually or go to some kind of heaven or valhalla (personally, if I had to be religious I'd prefer it to be the viking religion) or something, but I just don't believe it's true.

My brain is making those decisions. Based on chemical and electrical (and other physical) interactions in my brain that can be explained naturally, as in without influence of a deity or a soul.

It does not exclude the possibility that there's something controlling us, but I don't think so. Also, why can't you accept that? Does it make you feel bad?

The brain is basically a very big computer that we don't quite understand (yet). The fact that we don't understand it does not make it magical.

It doesnt make me feel bad, I just dont accept it simply because it sounds like a load of crap. Its an opinion based on what I perceive. That isnt to say my view is better than yours, just that I dont view it as a very good answer explanation of things.

I dont believe in a soul in the sense that religious or spiritual people might, but I couldn't definitively tell you that consciousness is just the result of a slightly more advanced brain.

Originally Posted by Boris

This is a fallacy. Whether or not you think electrical and chemical computers are the same or not has no bearing on the determinism of the universe (which simply states that given a certain initial state, subsequent states can be predicted).

Two different points, no?

Its no fallacy, I was just being way too careless in what I typed :P.

I simply meant to say that I dont think everything is predestined.

Originally Posted by Boris

Which are qualifiers that do not matter in the slightest.

I would argue that they do matter. I do not view them to be the same, and I would argue that you would have a hard time ever convincing the mass population that they were the same, certainly now, but even in the future.

Originally Posted by Boris

No, not with the current state of technology. But that is not the point.

The point is, that it is possible to create an artificial chicken (or simulate an entire chicken brain in real time) with technology. If there is such a thing as a soul, a computer would not have it and the simulated chicken would not work.

But this is based on the assumption that we have no soul, and also that we have knowledge of everything needed to make a biological brain work.

Its certainly possible that there is something more that a simulated chicken just could not compete with compared to a biological chicken.

Even if you create an artificial chicken that can mimic a real one, its still only ever going to be an artificial creation, and not the real article.

Until such a point where the artificial chicken could reproduce by its own means in an organic way, I dont see how you could really think of it as equivalent life in a moral sense.

Originally Posted by Boris

Your first sentence does raise an interesting question though -- who decides what is sufficiently intelligent? How would you measure it?

and indeed this is an important part of it! Who are we to say the artificial chicken is 'as good as' the real one.

Originally Posted by Grible

The Universe - can it be an "Observer" - ie does it determine the life of giraffes.

Corrected for accuracy.

While determinism is undoubtedly a bit depressing from my perspective, that isnt why I disagree with it. I also personally think it would absolutely butcher the beauty in things.

I just dont think the universe can be something that is fully deterministic in nature to a point where everything can be predicted and there is no free will.

The absolute randomness of life spits in the face of determinism.

It is beyond belief for me to think that everything that happens was predestined, in the same way that the views of religion are beyond belief to me.

Its true that its all a bit moot without proof either way, and I can prove neither, but I also believe neither idea.

It doesnt make me feel bad, I just dont accept it simply because it sounds like a load of crap. Its an opinion based on what I perceive. That isnt to say my view is better than yours, just that I dont view it as a very good answer explanation of things.

I dont believe in a soul in the sense that religious or spiritual people might, but I couldn't definitively tell you that consciousness is just the result of a slightly more advanced brain.

Well, to be fair I always claimed that I don't think that there is an entity controlling us all, that's what you suggested.

I also can't tell you that there is no soul, or magic, happening in our brain. I only think that Ockham's Razor suggests that there most likely isn't. I think the most logical explanation for all of this is that our brains are just computers.

Originally Posted by BasicPauly

Two different points, no?

Its no fallacy, I was just being way too careless in what I typed :P.

I simply meant to say that I dont think everything is predestined.

Well, you do have to be careful. I can't guess what you mean.

Originally Posted by BasicPauly

I would argue that they do matter. I do not view them to be the same, and I would argue that you would have a hard time ever convincing the mass population that they were the same, certainly now, but even in the future.

So? What does that have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by BasicPauly

But this is based on the assumption that we have no soul, and also that we have knowledge of everything needed to make a biological brain work.

Its certainly possible that there is something more that a simulated chicken just could not compete with compared to a biological chicken.

Even if you create an artificial chicken that can mimic a real one, its still only ever going to be an artificial creation, and not the real article.

Until such a point where the artificial chicken could reproduce by its own means in an organic way, I dont see how you could really think of it as equivalent life in a moral sense.

Now you're directly contradicting what you said earlier about that very intelligent robots should also be treated fairly. Which of your two standpoints would you like to hold?

Originally Posted by BasicPauly

and indeed this is an important part of it! Who are we to say the artificial chicken is 'as good as' the real one.

You just did, though.

Originally Posted by BasicPauly

While determinism is undoubtedly a bit depressing from my perspective, that isnt why I disagree with it. I also personally think it would absolutely butcher the beauty in things.

So basically, "I don't think this is wrong because it's depressing, I think this is wrong because it is depressing."

I'm inclined to agree with Boris. We can control consciousness by altering the chemical makeup of the brain. Mortality is also a function of cerebral decay. It makes sense to me that we're the result of the actions of the brain, and the brain is a self-modifying computer (a model we've simulated with not inconsiderate success). The only spanner in the works is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Saying we don't have enough data, from a determinist viewpoint, is actually saying that we don't have all the data. Ignoring the fact that we physically will not be able to observe the complete history of the universe which would be required to accurately model the future, the uncertainty principle prohibits us from obtaining enough information to do so because at most, we can get half of it. Or so the principle goes.

I'm inclined to agree with Boris. We can control consciousness by altering the chemical makeup of the brain. Mortality is also a function of cerebral decay. It makes sense to me that we're the result of the actions of the brain, and the brain is a self-modifying computer (a model we've simulated with not inconsiderate success). The only spanner in the works is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Saying we don't have enough data, from a determinist viewpoint, is actually saying that we don't have all the data. Ignoring the fact that we physically will not be able to observe the complete history of the universe which would be required to accurately model the future, the uncertainty principle prohibits us from obtaining enough information to do so because at most, we can get half of it. Or so the principle goes.

Yep. However, an all powerful being (suppose, for this example, that there is such a thing) could get the entire state of the universe and predict the next step. Just as I, as a computer engineer, can stop a computer in its tracks grab the state and predict the next one.

We won't ever be getting all the data, so for us there will always be the appearance of uncertainty or randomness. My belief is just that it's only the lack of information making that appear so, and that the universe itself does follow predictable rules.

Yep. However, an all powerful being (suppose, for this example, that there is such a thing) could get the entire state of the universe and predict the next step. Just as I, as a computer engineer, can stop a computer in its tracks grab the state and predict the next one.

We won't ever be getting all the data, so for us there will always be the appearance of uncertainty or randomness. My belief is just that it's only the lack of information making that appear so, and that the universe itself does follow predictable rules.

I am also inclined to agree with Boris. Events have causes, whether or not we see or understand them. Speculating on things we do not understand completely is rash. Instead, work with what you've got available. I'm still not entirely determinist, but it's not exactly "predestination" in the way you're thinking about, Paul. It's simply that since no event contains within itself the reason for its own existence, said event must have had a cause. If you understand the cause (in its entirety, potentially a very complex requirement), you can predict the event. Lack of understanding is the key part here, not a lack of causes.

EDIT: When I say it's not predestination, I simply mean that nothing predicts or comprehends the cosmic "chain of events". Our comparatively simple choices are still present (as they appear to us), it's just that there is an explanation for them that extends beyond "I chose to do this for no apparent reason".

Determinism doesn't mean that we are not capable of creativity, beauty, feats of wonder or simply being good (or bad) people. All determinism does is suggests where that creativity, beauty, good and bad are located. It locates it in classical causality rather than a free willed consciousness or a divinely inspired project. It does not make beautiful things any less beautiful. It does not make an arsehole any less an arsehole.

Just adding my pointless observations to this tower of word slop...

In my eyes determinism or existentialism aren't particularly depressing. I can understand why someone would think so if they have only ever really found meaning in existence from the idea of souls or divine purpose or whatever. But to me the idea that we are incredible, messy, absurdly complex, barely understood, ☼masterwork☼ products of physics and nature seems more exciting than ideas of a wooOOoo ghost in your head or some bearded chap making us to a design.

Free will seems to me like a product of how madly complex our brains are. This doesn't make it any less than what it is, you can still experience choice and responsibility even if you believe in a deterministic explanation. In fact, it would seem impossible to not experience free will as a human - if you could ever comprehend every deterministic element of the brain, enough to predict the future patterns, surely that knowledge itself would effect you in a way you could not have accounted for. How can you know that which you do not yet know? If yer get what I mean.